Not being used to Mao’s concept of permanent revolution, the Con-Dems are having a bit of a brainstorm over city mayors. What else could explain the decision by Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles to install existing council leaders as mayors in 12 provincial cities and then invite voters to give the red or green light in a subsequent “confirmatory referendum”? As recipes for confusion go, I have yet to see a better one. To begin with, this “reform” would initially put in place Labour mayors in cities such as Leeds, Wakefield and Bradford, where the Tories and their partners either lost power last May or never had it. The alternative would be to pick out a compliant Conservative (quite a few of those around) from the minority and proclaim him or her mayor. It would be totally undemocratic, but then so is the Localism and Decentralisation Bill about to go before the House of Commons, if it simply appoints a mayor by administrative fiat everywhere that Eric the Well-Fed chooses.
Unlike Birmingham, where former MP Sion Simon pines to be “Mr Brum”, Labour leaders in Yorkshire don’t want to be Tory-appointed mayors and would fight their own compulsory selection, or “rebadging” in the Government’s unlovely phrase. Councillor Keith Wakefield, leader of Leeds City Council (I know this is confusing, but I did warn you), condemned the Pickles plan. “It is totally undemocratic to impose someone without any democratic consultation”, he said. “The people of Leeds are the ones I think should have the final say on this. We on the council have always been opposed to a directly-elected mayor.”
Well, not quite. Labour has always been opposed, but the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition in power until last May did propose a city-wide referendum on a direct mayoralty, as allowed in Tony Blair’s legislation. This is the law that gave us mayors in Stoke on Trent, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, where it cannot be counted as a success, as well as London and some of the capital’s boroughs, where it has worked rather better. Leeds was supposed to have a vote, but nothing ever came of it.
In Sheffield, where the Lib Dems retain control, presumably their leader Paul Scriven, who failed to win a parliamentary seat, will be declared mayor. This prospect has aroused the wrath of Clive Betts, Labour MP for Sheffield South East, who is also chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. He declares: “This news will astound anyone who has heard Eric Pickles expounding the virtues of localism. It is now quite clear that his version of localism is ‘local people implementing what Mr Pickles has decided’.
“In Sheffield, wide consultation showed that there was little support for a change to the directly-elected mayor model. It is astonishing arrogance for his Con-Dem Government to now go on and impose this arrangement, flying in the expressed views of local people.”
This is not uniquely a Yorkshire problem, although it might seem tailor-made to infuriate Tykes. Pickles intends to impose his will on a dozen cities: Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Manchester, Birmingham, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham and Wakefield. Hull seems to have been forgotten, but that’s about par for the course.
In Coventry, former Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, who has his eye on the mayoralty, criticised the Government’s plans, while current council leader John Mutton said he would take the position if thrust on him on a “not a penny piece more” basis. He would then campaign against having a mayor in any referendum. You see what I mean about confusing? Not even the meerkats in the confused.com TV adverts could get their little pointy-heads round this one.
A number of questions arise. What is the point of a referendum to overturn a fait accompli? This is a bit like offering the Czechs a plebiscite on independence after German troops have occupied the Sudetenland. And would there be, pace the first referendum on Scottish devolution in the 1970s, a requirement for a minimum turnout to validate the vote? If there is, a straight boycott might be the best way of making a laughing stock of the whole enterprise. The Tories (and make no mistake, this is a Tory initiative) can’t start demanding a turnout of 40 per cent in trade union strike ballots and then deny it to citizens in a vote on their future local governance. Labour MPs should seek to put this democracy-lock into the bill.
Further, it strikes me that the whole idea of confirmatory ballots is open to demands for a judicial review. Referendums are not part of the traditional British way of life, although they have become more frequent in recent years. But post-factum referendums are definitely a novel political device, clearly constructed to frustrate the will of the people. They surely can and must be challenged in the courts if Pickles gets his way in Parliament.
Eric the Well-Fed wants his mayors in office by May 2012. The political motive is plain to see. In the aftermath of job-killing cuts, the Tories expect to lose councils up and down the country. If they have their placemen in place in every big city hall before they reach the nadir of their electoral popularity, then they can drive through Con-Dem policy no matter how many council seats they lose, because they have the all-powerful mayor in their pocket. A Pickles rollover, you might think, and not a pretty sight.
